Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 41

Thread: pinan vs heian... what happened?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    38
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff
    While Funakoshi's karate gets a lot of flack in some circles for simplification, I think a better explanation is that he employed his experience as an educator and scholar and karateka to try to revolutionize and globalize karate-do.
    I think that is an important point actually... My previous martial arts experiences have always been in large group classes where everyone performs movements by number. Whether just punching, or even kata, everything is done treating the whole group as though it was one person.

    It seems on Okinawa (back in the day..) training was much more personal and one on one. once Kata started being taught in schools, that changed. It is possible that some of the more subtle steps were ommited or modified by funakoshi (and others) to make teaching groups (especially school children) easier.
    Also, since funakoshi most likely learned in a very private setting, it is possible that he was taught the kata differently than other students were... Maybe he just preferred back stance to cat stance- so that is what he was allowed to use...?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris McLean
    The back stance also looks very similar to a posture of a Samurai.
    Also a great point... I studied Aikido as well in the past and we used a stance called Hamnei which is a very similar to the shotokan back stance, except your weight is evenly distributed.
    It seems to me that a lot of okinawan styles actually don't have that back stance. To them, back stance is exactly like front stance, but you turn your upper body to face the rear. So maybe there is something to be said of the samurai japanification of the movements as well as the names of kata......
    D. Fiorello

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Houston Tx
    Posts
    241
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    With regards to Shotokan, could it be that after WWII they made changes to hide some techniques from the Military board that was convened to decide whether or not to allow martial arts to be allowed back into practice? Maybe it was the fear of not being allowed to practice that caused the change in Kata. They could have watered it down to make it look less threatening.
    Chris McLean
    Martial Arts student

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Sierra Foothills, CA
    Posts
    357
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Here is a picture of Iha Sekichi in kokutsudachi.
    Ray Baldonade
    Chibana-ha Shorin-ryu

    "Love many, trust few and do wrong to none". Chan Yau-man

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Sierra Foothills, CA
    Posts
    357
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Here is a puicture of him circa 1964.
    Slight difference but still narrow.

    Someone mention their teacher once said,
    Shotokan is good, if you take the kendo out of it. Lol...
    Ray Baldonade
    Chibana-ha Shorin-ryu

    "Love many, trust few and do wrong to none". Chan Yau-man

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    One thing about Shotokan that I don't think anybody's mentioned so far was the influence of the universities. A lot of stance lengthening and such went on there, because it was a good workout.

    The influence of kendo distances and such has already been mentioned, but don't forget the influence of having to teach a whole bunch of teenagers something that got their blood pumping in a very militaristic style of class. They weren't teaching them the "internal" part of karate so much as the "external," how to hold their legs, their arms, etc. They corrected the limbs, but not so much the center of the body, how to feel an opponent's balance, etc. A lot of subtleties were lost.

    And also, don't forget the issue of WWII. A LOT of JKA seniors were involved in WWII and couldn't train, and after the war, Funakoshi was a bit old for teaching. They ended up having to reconstruct the kata from their memories, and didn't always do a good job of it. Turns go the wrong way in some of the advanced kata, like Hangetsu, (compared to, say, Seisan, it's antecedent) and their Wankan ends halfway through because they forgot the ending! (They didn't go back to the rustic Okinawans to figure out how to finish Wankan, either. They never asked.)
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Charleston, IL USA
    Posts
    441
    Likes (received)
    1

    Question My humble opinion...for what it's worth (about 25 yen!)

    If we look at Funakoshi developing something for the Japanese school system, we can see a bit of a correlation. At that point in time the Japanese was still a militaristic, ordered, society. Funakoshi too what he learned on his Okinawan home and made it a bit more orderly. Taking some angles out of the form, making it end in the same spot it started, things like that.

    As for the name difference, my understanding that it is a different pronounciation of the same character. Remember, Okinawa wasn't always part of Japan. Think of the word roof and how it's prounced in the northeast(r-ooo-f), and in Chicago (r-u-f). Different pronounciation, same characters.
    With respect,

    Mitch Saret

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    38
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    As far as the name changes go, I was under the impression that it wasn't just a difference in pronunciation, but actually a deliberate attempt to distance (what would become) Shotokan from its Okinawan roots to make it palatable to the Japanese (mainland)...

    Also, as far as the WWII theory, a lot of the kata was already changed as early as the 20s-as illustrated in Funakoshi's Karate-jutsu...

    I do agree that the universities no doubt played a large part in some of the curriculum of Shotokan (and the elementary schools before that even), especially the breaking of kata into numbered sequences, having a steady rhythm etc.... all of which make teaching a large group possible. This of course was definitely evident and played a large part in post WWII karate (especially as taught to American GIs.) That no doubt furthered the military discipline/group training aspect as we know it today.

    I haven't had a lot of time to pour over it recently, and I should take the time since it's my question to begin with... but in Karate-jutsu, Funakoshi demonstrates the back stance, and the cat stance and describes each..in the section concerning stances and such... so, cat stance is not removed from the style...just the kata (at this point he still calls them pinan incidentally..)
    I initially considered that perhaps he replaced cat stance with back...but it is clear that he used both, and was taught both (and taught both).
    D. Fiorello

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    326
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default How about this?

    Interesting reading.

    What about the possibility that Funakoshi didn't really have a lot of depth to his karate and because of that, his karate changed over the years as he tried to make sense of something he himself didn't fully understand? Then, his students, all very smart people in their own right, continued to try and figure it out on their own, making changes that made sense to each of them.

    Probably an unpopular theory, especially with the Shotokan folks, and it is not meant to be inflamatory. I started my karate in a Shotokan dojo and it was great because it taught me to love karate and to search for anwers to the many questions I had.

    I wanted to put that out there as another plausible explanation.

    Best,
    Tim
    Tim Black
    Kokusai Shinjinbukan

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    38
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    thats a very important point... especially judging from the photos in karate-jutsu of Funakoshi performing the techniques and kata, his place as a legend is definitely due to his role as promoter/author/teacher; not as technician. So it is fully possible that the future Heians are wrought with mistakes and skewed to accommodate his loose grasp of the art...

    When we take into consideration that at the time most karateka only learned at most 3-5 kata, and at that usually only 1 every 5 years or so... it is a bit odd that Funakoshi emerges with more than 15 of them under his belt (no pun intended....well...a little...) so maybe his mastery of them was a bit superficial...

    Even if we take that though, it doesn't explain the differences... It explains why they might be performed a bit stiff, or something like that... but to actually alter the stances, and strikes and things like that... it seems more deliberate..not the result of a lack of skill...

    Funakoshi himself however, related a story about how sometimes certain kata were never taught to anyone, and if they were - there were usually deliberate inaccuracies so that the true meaning could not be detected. I believe Funakoshi says that his son was taught the correct version of one such kata in Funakoshi's place, and that the teacher explained that he was the only one to ever learn the correct version.

    Is it possible that Funakoshi himself learned kata that were deliberately inaccurate ?

    There is always a great deal of interest and importance placed on bunkai... but how can we believe in the secret hidden techniques if the techniques themselves aren't preserved properly? How can we say "this is what Itosu was saying in this kata" if we change the words?
    D. Fiorello

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    110
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Just a question. Is there proof of Itosu teaching bunkai? Is his bunkai preserved/ still taught and if so in what styles?

    And some thoughts:
    From what I understand preservation or orthodox karate ryu are probably a modern invention. With a few exceptions (GoJu-ryu comes to mind) can we even speak of ryu before 1900? Isn't the whole idea of a ryu with a set or very slowly changing syllabus more Japanese then Okinawan?
    I think you learned karate from your teacher in a small group. The teacher might adapt the karate to fit you better or to teach you something. So this is a way to diversify karate. Second diversification would occur if student 1 would first train with teacher a and then teacher b and student 2 with teacher a and then teacher c. That's just how techniques and kata change.

    Then there's the reforming of the way students were taught. So the what (is taught) has been changing forever and the how (it is taught) has been changing for at least 120 years.

    Funakoshi was a reformer, so was Itosu, so were the men after Funakoshi. Thye changed what they knew to fit the modern times as they saw best. If you train in a lineage full of reformers it's just silly to use reverse engineering on what you know and present the result as historically correct (defending the king with your back to a wall thats what the kata is for, yeah right).


    I should probably buy: "Shotokan a precise history" I think this answers some of these questions but it's not in stock anywhere.

    By the way if someone has answer to my first questions or if my assumptions are wrong I'm happy to learn about it.


    have a nice weekend,
    Casper Baar

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Sierra Foothills, CA
    Posts
    357
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I have not been a big advocate of the back against the wall/rice paddy
    fighting either, but lately I have been exposed to some techniques that
    suggest the protection of of the King was plausible.

    No one knows what Itosu was thinking so speculation is all we have.
    I have been thinking lately, and the question of documentation keeps
    poping up in my head. Were not Matsumura, Itosu and Funakoshi
    educated people. As educated people, did they not have the resources
    to document these things. If there really is "ONE CORRECT" interpretation,
    then they would have written it down somewhere. Rather than that, we have
    what is very common among oral traditions as the freedom or free will to
    adapt things to make them pertainent to our lives. Today we have the
    internet. What we write today, will be around the world in seconds.
    Back in the day, your information was by word of mouth and very localised.
    You probably would never be questioned about your karate.

    Funakoshi's changes were only to make karate mean something to the
    Japanese public. IMO, I do not think reverse engineering is wrong. It makes
    my karate mean something to me. If done with the original intentions of self
    protection, why would that be wrong? While I do not like what Funakoshi did,
    (mostly because of ignorance on my part), I support his changes.

    Regarding the book, I did not like it. It was very childish in it's presentation.
    It sounded more like a Shotokan propaganda device. I also disagree with
    some of the conclusions the author made. One thing I do not understand,
    he refers to Itosu no Passai as Matsumura no Passai. This throws up a
    red flag that maybe he did not do his homework. IMO. If I got this wrong,
    please correct me.

    Peace

    P.S. Here is a discussion on the Pinans from another forum.
    The kata by Mr. Urena is how I do it.

    http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/sh...ighlight=pinan
    Last edited by Nyuck3X; 7th July 2007 at 17:39.
    Ray Baldonade
    Chibana-ha Shorin-ryu

    "Love many, trust few and do wrong to none". Chan Yau-man

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casper Baar
    I should probably buy: "Shotokan a precise history" I think this answers some of these questions but it's not in stock anywhere.
    Yes you should. There's an expanded 2nd edition coming out soon. Race ya!
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    38
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casper Baar
    Just a question. Is there proof of Itosu teaching bunkai? Is his bunkai preserved/ still taught and if so in what styles?

    I don't know of any direct record of anything Itosu did, but Funakoshi does mention some bunkai in Karate jutsu while describing the kata. Taking pinan shodan (which is still what he called what would later be heian nidan) for instance (and I don't have the book in front of me right now, so its by memory..) he says of the opening movements that you are blocking a strike to the face with a left hand middle block, while simultaneously preparing a counter strike with your right arm above your head. the next technique is a punch with your right hand, while your left hand chambers. the bottom fist strike is to catch the opponent that has been off-balanced by your previous punch and ensure that he falls to the ground. then repeat the mirror of it on the other side.


    That is certainly the most simple explanation, and seems to be the one Funakoshi was taught, and then taught himself. It doesn't stand to reason that Itosu (and the others that taught him..) could have given other explanations that Funakoshi later disregarded. So, they either taught the kata using those explanations or, they didn't say anything at all about what the movements were.

    I think that the idea of bunkai being so deep and mystical is very recent. I think the masters of Funakoshi's and Itosu's time took it for granted as being obvious in most cases, and possibly put in some movements strictly as exercises, or to look mysterious. No one wants to think that is the case (I certainly don't....) but there are a lot of stories of the old school teachers using their kata demos to sell medicine, or even to get students...what better way than with esoteric movements...

    However, that said, people have been mentioning that the idea of preserving kata is new, and that it was very common to change them from master to master... that is true, and we have seen it in certain ways, but I think there was always a sense of importance about preserving kata. I recently read a translation of one of the 20 precepts of Funakoshi and it was: "perform kata exactly-actual fighting is another matter"... something like that.
    D. Fiorello

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Santa Barbara CA
    Posts
    258
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris McLean
    With regards to Shotokan, could it be that after WWII they made changes to hide some techniques from the Military board that was convened to decide whether or not to allow martial arts to be allowed back into practice? Maybe it was the fear of not being allowed to practice that caused the change in Kata. They could have watered it down to make it look less threatening.
    The post-war SCAP ban on the practice of martial arts did not affect karate. It was not considered to be a martial art.

    Aikido, however, was included in the ban. Go figure...
    Yours in Judo,

    Brian P. Griffin

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    110
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    to D. Fiorello:

    I was actually more curious for Itosu's bunkai surviving in lines that do not include Funakoshi. This would give a clue as to where certain changes came from. But thank you.

    "However, that said, people have been mentioning that the idea of preserving kata is new, and that it was very common to change them from master to master... that is true, and we have seen it in certain ways, but I think there was always a sense of importance about preserving kata. I recently read a translation of one of the 20 precepts of Funakoshi and it was: "perform kata exactly-actual fighting is another matter"... something like that."
    Could also mean use exact movements during kata... does not necessarily have to mean perform the kata exactly as you were taught.

    Many of the old teachers had more than one teacher. So from his second teacher the student learned different versions of the same kata and new kata that the first teacher didn't teach.
    I think the whole idea of a ryu with a set curriculum (or slowly changing) is modern for many Okinawan karate lineages.
    Casper Baar

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •